Mayor of London Boris Johnson has admitted that he was wrong to claim that two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured while cycling in London were breaking the law at the time of the incident.

News of the retraction of the claim came in the same week that the mayor said he was pushing for a much-needed East-West cycle route in the capital, the two episodes illustrating something Mr Johnson is often accused of by his critics – the gulf between his enthusiasm for headline generating schemes, but at the same time his lack of attention to detail.

Cycling, and the safety of cyclists specifically, provides perhaps the starkest contrast between the two, tragically illustrated last year in the aftermath of the deaths of Brian Dorling and Svitlana Tereschenko as they rode through Bow Roundabout.

Following those fatalities, it came to light that Transport for London (TfL), which Mr Johnson chairs, had ignored recommendations relating to the safety of cyclists and pedestrians at the junction in a report it had commissioned regarding the junction. Safety concerns had also been raised by the London Cycling Campaign (LCC).

Mr Johnson, however, insisted that he was unaware of the existence of that report. Six months on, when quizzed by Labour candidate Ken Livingstone during a mayoral election debate regarding comments apparently made by his former transport advisor Kulveer Ranger that smoothing traffic flow , rather than safety, was the mayor’s priority at Bow, Mr Johnson replied only that he had “no idea what Kulveer Ranger may or may not have said.”

The LCC and Green Assembly Member Jenny Jones were among those who took the mayor to task for his statement about cyclists who had fallen victim to road traffic incidents, which he had made during a Mayor’s Question Time in May this year.

In a subsequent Mayor’s Question Time session on 19 September, Ms Jones asked Mr Johnson: “It has been several months since you asked Transport for London to ‘look at’ whether there was any evidence for your statement that two thirds of cycling collisions are the result of cyclists not obeying the rules of the road. What is Transport for London’s answer and will you now give a public correction?”

In a written answer, Mr Johnson replied: “I asked Transport for London to look into a statistic that I was told about during my election campaign. Its own statistics and research suggest this is not the case in London and I am pleased to be able to set the record straight on this.

Charlie Lloyd of LCC, which reported the development last week, welcomed Mr Johnson’s clarification, saying: "The mayor is to be congratulated for having the courage to admit he made a mistake: this retraction should help correct the damaging misconception, including among many politicians and journalists, that people who are hurt while riding a bicycle are usually responsible for their own injuries."

LCC added that TfL’s own figures show that only three or four out of every 100 cyclists who are killed or seriously injured were breaking the law at the time of the incident, More than 95 per cent, in other words, were complying with the rules of the road.

The organisation had pushed Mr Johnson to retract his statement regarding cycling casualties during an ‘Ask Boris’ question and answer session on Twitter in June, and last week in another of those regular sessions, he confirmed that an East-West cycle route was being explored.

Asked by Twitter user Katie Wignall, “The cycle superhighways are excellent. Any plans to extend them in the near future?,” the mayor responded: "we are whacking in another six soon plus i have asked tfl for a big new east west route - and they like it! #askboris @kdwignall"

As a post on the blog Cyclists in the City points out, such a route would be a much needed addition to London’s network of cycle routes, but concerns are also raised about whether Westminster Council would be willing to fully embrace and implement such a proposal.

Boris is one of the few politicians who does his best to serve his electorate, rather than his own agenda. He might not always get things right (first time or at all) but he listens and is prepared to change his view in the face of a convincing argument. How many other politicians can you say that about?

Boris is one of the few politicians who does his best to serve his electorate, rather than his own agenda. He might not always get things right (first time or at all) but he listens and is prepared to change his view in the face of a convincing argument. How many other politicians can you say that about?

I was in London today using Boris Bike and was in a tiny minority of bike riders who stopped at red lights, didn't ride on the pavement or otherwise break the law.

A straw poll, I know. But likely to be a typical experience and certainly made me sympathise with the general public view that the majority of people on bikes ignore the laws of the road.

Whilst many motorists break the law, they are generally stamped on if caught; financial penalties in the form of fines and points on license that add up to higher insurance bills, and ultimately their toy taken away.

I'm not defending motorists over those who cycle - I do both; 15k miles per year on a bike, 8k miles per year in a car - or trying to suggest one set of lawbreaking is an excuse for another.

I just think if people on bikes want to be considered part of the traffic, best at least behave like we are, by complying with the rules - especially those that are designed to make using the road safer for everyone.

What is the difference; asking a car to wait 2 mins behind someone on a bike or asking that person on a bike to wait 2 mins til a traffic light goes green? Are they both in such a rush??

Whilst many motorists break the law, they are generally stamped on if caught; financial penalties in the form of fines and points on license that add up to higher insurance bills, and ultimately their toy taken away.

Unfortunately, that summation bears no weight whatsoever: car drivers regularly RLJ, drive without due care and attention, use mobile devices and get away with it. When they are hauled in front of courts for traffic offences, the resulting punishments are derisory to the point of insulting. You only have to do a search here or on the CTC site for reports of cases demonstrating it time over.

Michael5 wrote:

I just think if people on bikes want to be considered part of the traffic, best at least behave like we are, by complying with the rules - especially those that are designed to make using the road safer for everyone.

It is far too late (like over 100 years) for anyone to be holding reservations whether cycles are a part of traffic or not (and will be considered only if they behave). Bicycles are traffic and have been for a while before cars came into existence. That line of thought is so wrong it can only be seen as ignorant and dumb. Its as stupid as when they were telling women they can only have the vote if they stop misbehaving.

The fact of the matter is that cyclists safety will not improve if everyone obeyed every single road law. The crap infrastructure, the terrible attitude of a lot of drivers, as well as the inability of a large amount of them to maintain their attention to driving their vehicle safely will still be there. Suggesting all cyclists should behave before things improve (or moves made to improve things) is like saying women shouldn't dress like sluts if they want respect.

Michael5 wrote:

What is the difference; asking a car to wait 2 mins behind someone on a bike or asking that person on a bike to wait 2 mins til a traffic light goes green? Are they both in such a rush??

Studies carried out by TfL have shown that the number of cyclists RLJ is a small minority and when cyclists were questioned after they had jumped lights, it was more a case of safety than 'being an arsehole'. You only have to read a CCIWF post from last year about Russell Square to understand that because of how the infrastructure is designed, it is safer to RLJ than it is to obey the 'rules'.

Studies carried out by TfL have shown that the number of cyclists RLJ is a small minority and when cyclists were questioned after they had jumped lights, it was more a case of safety than 'being an arsehole'. You only have to read a CCIWF post from last year about Russell Square to understand that because of how the infrastructure is designed, it is safer to RLJ than it is to obey the 'rules'.

Do you really, honestly believe this? In what reality is it safer to venture across the path of traffic rather than waiting at a red light? If you feel unsafe when queuing at a light, I personally think you shouldn't be on the road in or on any vehicle.

Do you really, honestly believe this? In what reality is it safer to venture across the path of traffic rather than waiting at a red light? If you feel unsafe when queuing at a light, I personally think you shouldn't be on the road in or on any vehicle.

Did you read the article I linked? Did you not grasp anything from how the design of that junction (which is standard in London) puts cyclists at risk? Did you not understand how a large number of the cyclist deaths last year could have been avoided if only for a redesign in the infrastructure? Do you not grasp what the "Love London, go Dutch" campaign is about? Do you not know thats why there is not a massive uptake in utility cycling that would reduce the number people using cars for journeys under 3 miles?

@iDavid: you only have to view my comments in the Daily Mirror/Tony Parsons article to see that I very much dislike the clique that a lot of cyclists & drivers seem to think we are all in, just because we own bikes.

I am a road user but it is very apparent that my main mode of transport is only considered in road planning as an after thought, or at worst, in the cases of Bow roundabout and Kings Cross, there is evidence that TfL told the road planning assessing those junctions to ignore any safety concerns with cyclists and pedestrians as their 'score' was too low and would impede traffic flow.